Virginia TechGovernance Minutes Archive

November 30, 1990

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Senate Cabinet Meeting
November 30, 1990
Members Present: Senators Eng, Wang, Kriz, Farkas, Eiss, Geyer.
Guests: Carol Burch-Brown, Assistant Provost, and Professor Henry
Bauer.
1. DISCUSSION OF THE CORE-Carol Burch-Brown.
Assistant Provost and Chair of the University Forum on a
Liberal Education, Carol Burch Brown presented the Senate
Cabinet with data on the impact of the budget on class sizes
in the core and type of instructors teaching in the core. She
also informed the cabinet of the status of the Forum progress.
To date, the Forum has focused on gathering perceptions of
students, faculty who teach in the core, other faculty and
administrators, and information on "core" at other
Universities.
Concern to date has been the perception of the core as
distributional; problems of access to classes in humanities;
access to students "choice" versus available class; size of
classes; and lack of writing in some of the core classes,
primarily in the social sciences. Ms. Burch-Brown expressed
a desire to inform the faculty (and Faculty Senate) of the
progress of the Forum as appropriate and to participate in the
governance process as appropriate. After discussion, it was
decided that she would provide information on the Forum in our
February packet and possibly present a discussion for the
Senate on findings of the core in March.
2. DISCUSSION OF BUDGET ISSUES-Prof. Henry Bauer
A discussion of the Senate's role in budget and the current
handling of the budget by the administration was undertaken by
Prof. Bauer and the cabinet. The following is a list of
concerns that were generated for discussion and possible
pursuit by the Faculty Senate.
1. How are items labeled in the budget and how does
this determine how the budget crisis is "Managed"?
i.e., are there items in 208 that should be paid out
of 231, 230 or other budgets, allowing more funds
for instruction?
2. What percentage of Education Foundation is
earmarked, and what is the rest being used for?
3. Why should faculty not sit on the Foundation Board?
4. How are decisions made to let faculty members go
under budget reduction and yet advertize in Spectrum
for a new position in same department?
5. Why were some individuals under 208 laid off at the
same time advertisements were had for non-
instructional deans and administrative positions?
6. How many deanlets are needed in instructional/non-
instructional positions? Can these positions and
monies be shifted to teaching and support staff and
monies follow to departments? (Bauer-Main problem
is outside the Colleges.)
7. A request should be made to ask for the aggregate
payroll and budget of colleges, the aggregate of
208, 230, 231 and then make a comparison of how it
is spent between colleges and administration.
8. What is the need for the rapid growth in positions
and expenditures in the research division? Can it
be justified?
9. Who pays for Athletics?
10. What is paid for out of the Provost Office and is it
appropriate and necessary?
11. Why are phones as expensive with "savings of CNS"
than with AT+T? Other examples of "savings"
promised and not delivered should be pursued.
Professor Bauer argued for trust between faculty and
administrators to review and carefully look at ways to reduce
non-academic cost to assure adequate funding for instructional
need. Faculty would have to spend a lot of time to find "the
facts and figures." Where the University should economize and
how should it be reviewed. Efforts to shift non-instructional
expense when accrued by individuals paid out of 208 should be
undertaken. The conversation left the Senate with a challenge
to decide how and if it is willing to ask hard questions like
the ones above.
3. Reconciliation Committee
A discussion of pending reconciliation cases resulted in the
following concerns:
1. Although Tech has tried to follow the Faculty
Handbook, concern over whether University Counsel
understands, supports and follows the handbook was
raised. Are decisions being advised on the basis of
"legal" interpretations or management advice from
University Counsel without resort to the process of
the handbook?
2. Is there support for the reconciliation process in
the Provost Office? Senate Officers were instructed
to review the reconciliation process with the
Provost and determine his support of the process.
3. Do we need a new process and new procedures for the
Reconciliation Committee. What steps should be
taken to make reconciliation work? What issues are
appropriate for reconciliation and what issues are
only appropriate for the Faculty Review Committee?
4. Concern over Deans' and Vice Presidents
understanding of the reconciliation process was
explored. Senate officers should be invited to
Deans Council to inform them of role and encourage
support of the process.
Cabinet was in consensus that Reconciliation can and
has served a useful role as mediator of disputes.
Procedural and jurisdictional reform of the process
may be appropriate. These would include defined
support by the University to include support for the
Reconciliation Committee and the Faculty Review
Committee by providing legal counsel and paying for
appropriate legal fees, should any of its members be
involved in a lawsuit arising from a Committee case.
Furthermore, the University will assume all
financial liabilities from a judgement against any
individual who has served on either Committee if it
is based on the action of the Committee.
Several reconciliation cases have resulted from
untimely and questionable involuntary transfers of
faculty duty stations. The issue of involuntary
transfer of faculty is under review by the
Commission on Faculty Affairs.
Dan Farkas, chair of the Reconciliation Committee,
resigned effective January 1, 1991.
4. Fall Break letter from SGA
The Student Government Association reported student
dissatisfaction with the current fall calendar and for faculty
input into the revision of the calendar. Selected excerpts
from the letter follow:
(The SGA finds)...discontent among the student
body with the length of time between the
beginning of the fall term and the
Thanksgiving break. We would like to propose
alternate formats to the University's
scheduling and registration committee, most
likely with the intention of retaining the
entire Thanksgiving break and adding a fall
break of about two days earlier in the
semester.
Due to the school calendar being a joint endeavor
of administration, students, and especially
faculty, we would like to ask the Faculty Senate to
develop guidelines, if possible, on what
characteristics of the school's schedule are most
important to retain or add."
5. Nominee for Emergency/Disaster Plan Committee
Said committee has asked for a nominee from Faculty Senate.
6. Campus Climate Committee
Said committee has asked for a list of planned programs of the
Senate on cultural diversity. President Eng to respond.
7. Faculty Support Survey
Senators are requested to urge faculty participation in the
Faculty Support Survey.
Respectively submitted,
L. Leon Geyer